The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 A. Graham Archive
The Evolution of Commentary
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Benjamin Balint
Running Commentary: The Contentious Magazine that Transformed the Jewish Left into the Neoconservative Right
New York: PublicAffairs, 2010

Running Commentary is a lively and well-researched work of intellectual history that is of interest both as an account of how a group of alienated dissidents came to revolutionize American politics and as a history of neoconservatism that details the movement’s Jewish origins. The author’s main thesis is that the link between neoconservatism and the anti-Stalinist Left is not coincidental but rather parallels societal shifts that occurred during the twentieth century as Jewish alienation gave way to assimilation into the mainstream. Neoconservatives who were initially anti-Stalinist Leftists include Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Sidney Hook, Nathan Glazer, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Seymour Martin Lipset, and others.

Commentary was the epicenter of this transformation. Founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee, it initially was a bastion of anti-Stalinist Leftism. Under Norman Podhoretz the magazine shifted rightward and was responsible for the founding of the neoconservative movement. Since the late 1970s it has fiercely defended neoconservatism. Balint characterizes Commentary as a multivolume “American Talmud” chronicling the entirety of the post-war American Jewish experience and thus frames neoconservatism as a Jewish movement.

At the heart of what was to become Commentary was a close-knit circle of New York Jewish intellectuals referred as “the Family,” united by their working-class immigrant upbringings and political radicalism. Most of them were educated at the City College of New York, where they engaged in spirited political debates in the student cafeteria and acquired an ability for “verbal pugilism” that later characterized the magazine. The New York Intellectuals were ardent Trotskyites and many of them belonged to Young People’s Socialist League (then Trotskyist in orientation).

“The Family” was a fitting moniker for the group and the circles in which they traveled. They not only shared common ancestry and upbringings but also intermarried among each other and forged personal and professional bonds that lasted for decades. They helped each other obtain jobs, promoted each other’s work, and groomed their children to succeed them. The connections among them are too numerous to list. This contributed to their rapid rise later on.

Their opposition to Stalinism was shared by Jews at large. Stalin was not an anti-Semite on principle but nonetheless was despised by Jews on account of his purging of thousands of Jewish Bolsheviks and his opposition to Trotskyite internationalism, having implemented a form of nationalistic communism by adopting the idea of “Socialism in One Country” as state policy. Communism also acquired a socially conservative bent under Stalin; this among other factors led Trotsky to proclaim that the revolution had been “betrayed.”

This created a split among American leftists that culminated in the founding of the Committee for Cultural Freedom in 1939 by John Dewey and Sidney Hook (himself a frequent Commentary contributor whose intellectual trajectory paralleled that of the magazine). The CCF denounced Stalinist totalitarianism and promoted liberal democratic reforms. It was funded by the CIA, who used it as a vehicle to exert influence upon American cultural life. The CIA via the CCF also directed funds to Partisan Review and Encounter and promoted artistic movements such as Abstract Expressionism and intellectuals such as Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, and others. Commentary was never the recipient of such funds but many of its contributors benefited from CIA funding. (In response to allegations that this compromised the magazine’s intellectual integrity, Norman Podhoretz, editor of the magazine from 1960 to 1995, published a symposium in 1967 entitled “Liberal Anti-Communism Revisited” as a defence of the firm anti-Communist stance that Commentary had espoused in the 1940s and 50s.)

By the time Commentary came into being in 1945, it had positioned itself on the side of the anti-Communist liberals as a matter of course. Their anti-Communism was distinct from the right-wing anti-Communism of Joseph McCarthy or Father Coughlin; hewing to what Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. termed “the vital center,” they championed liberal democracy, civil rights, and the ideal of the open society.

By this point they had also reconciled themselves to America. As Harold Rosenberg put it, “It has come to seem more reasonable to get to the top floor by taking an elevator than by blowing up the building.” A review in Commentary of Saul Bellow’s The Victim praised the novel for its attempt “to consider Jewishness not in its singularity, not as constitutive of a special world of experience, but as a quality that informs all of modern life.”

Commentary soon became a leading periodical with a circulation of 20,000 readers by the late 1940s. It effectively carved out a new literary establishment. The prominence of Jews in the literary world grew to be such that Truman Capote complained of a nepotistic “mafia” of Jews who gave each other a leg up at the expense of gentiles.

From its inception, Commentary was committed to cultural and ideological warfare as a means of bringing about political change. Elliot A. Cohen, the magazine’s first editor, insisted that the fight against Communism was a battle of ideas and that “America should not only fight Communism on the diplomatic playing field, but also wage an ideological war and export American values abroad.” One writer would later claim that “the decisive battle of the Cold War was waged not with tanks and missiles but with typewriters and ideas.” Indeed the neoconservatives’ meteoric rise proves the efficacy of the metapolitical approach advocated by the New Right. Within decades of its founding, Commentary reached the corridors of the White House and was in a position to influence public policy.

Although early issues dealt with Communism and the Holocaust extensively, Commentary initially did not dwell on Zionism or lend support to it. Most liberal Jews were wary of the concept of a Jewish state. Commentary deemed Zionism to be reactionary, seeing the Jews as a people “obviously chosen to be the protagonist in the fight against nationalism.” In an article on Theodore Herzl, Hannah Arendt expressed skepticism that the founding of a Jewish homeland would extinguish anti-Semitism and argued that creating a Jewish state surrounded by Arab nations would entail the constant necessity of self-defence against Arab hostility. Cohen pointed out that Jews in Israel would still remain dependent upon the outside world economically, rendering political independence meaningless.

As the Civil Rights movement gained momentum, Commentary began to concentrate more on racial issues. By this time Norman Podhoretz had succeeded Cohen as the editor of the magazine. Podhoretz was a staunch supporter of colorblindness and racial equality. In his first piece written for Commentary, entitled “My Negro Problem–and Ours,” he offered a candid recollection of his childhood experiences with blacks and advocated for “the wholesale merging of the two races” as the ideal solution to the race problem. The magazine also addressed poverty, crime, etc. and advocated welfare and other social reforms.

Commentary took a softer stance on Communism, which was characterized as an obsolete threat. In Schlesinger’s words: “Communism today is a boring, squalid creed, tired, fragmented and, save in very exceptional places and circumstances, wholly uninspiring. La guerre est finie.” Thus Commentary was critical of foreign policy aimed at containing Communism. The magazine also criticized American involvement in Vietnam (though Podhoretz distanced himself from more radical figures like Noam Chomsky, who compared American “butchery in Vietnam” to the Holocaust).

ORDER IT NOW

However as the 1960s wore on and the New Left gained ascendance, Podhoretz shifted to the right, and Commentary with him. Although the New Left was heavily Jewish, Podhoretz saw their attack on the middle class and the universities as a threat to Jewish interests given the Jews’ status as a high-IQ, upwardly mobile group. By this time, Jews had entered the professions and had largely risen beyond their working-class immigrant roots. Podhoretz was a prime example. (In Making It, one of his many memoirs, he unabashedly confesses his thirst for fame and status.) Having benefited from the economic opportunity America offered, Podhoretz was alienated by the New Left’s distaste for capitalism. He came to conclude that Jews were best served by identifying with America and using patriotic rhetoric to defend Jewish interests. This differentiated him from most Jews, whose identification with the underdog led them to embrace political liberalism.

Podhoretz also condemned the New Left’s support for authoritarian leaders such as Ho Chi Minh, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Fidel Castro, etc., which he saw as antithetical to the liberal democratic ideals that Commentary upheld.

Black interests and Jewish interests occasionally came into conflict over the course of the 1960s and 1970s. Jews historically benefited from meritocratic college admission policies and some feared that instituting affirmative action quotas would harm them as a group. Figures in the Black Power movement also generally opposed Zionism, seeing it as a manifestation of racism and imperialism, and sympathized with Palestinian liberation; many were overtly anti-Semitic.

Thus Podhoretz’s shift to the right was motivated by his belief that anti-Americanism and political radicalism were antithetical to Jewish interests, as Balint notes:

. . . he also reacted to the radical Left as a Jew who wished to persuade his fellow intellectuals and fellow Jews alike “that radicalism was their enemy, and not their friend.” He harbored a dual fear, in other words, of the illiberal fits of the counterculture. He identified a threat from the Movement not only to intellectual and democratic principles, but also to Jewish interests.

Balint identifies the events leading up to the Six-Day War as a turning point in Commentary‘s evolution. In May 1967, Gamal Abdel Nasser began amassing troops in the Sinai Peninsula on the Israeli border, expelled the United Nations peacekeeping force from Gaza and Sinai, and threatened to destroy Israel. By early June, Israel had launched an airstrike in retaliation and declared war on Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israel’s victory instilled a sense of national pride among both Israelis and many American Jews, 10,000 of whom had volunteered to fight for Israel during the war.

Commentary published dozens of pro-Israel articles over the course of the following decades. The magazine maintained the line that Israel was an innocent, enlightened democracy under constant threat of Arab aggression, and that moreover the imperative of protecting Israel necessitated American aid.

As leftists increasingly came to see Israel as a racist, colonialist power, Podhoretz became convinced that anti-Semitism had become the domain of the Left. This led him to advocate for a more ethnocentric approach to politics that placed Jewish interests above all other factors. His eventual break with the Democratic party was hastened by the leak of a meeting between Andrew Young (Jimmy Carter’s ambassador to the United Nations) and a representative of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in 1979. Young’s vocal denunciation of Zionism was met with Jewish outrage. Podhoretz and other Jewish neoconservatives voted for Reagan in 1980 and subsequently registered as Republicans.

The neoconservatives also began to find common cause with the conservative anti-Communist fringe of the Republican Party, seeing the Soviet Union as a threat to Israel’s existence on account of its alliance with Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. They opposed the policy of détente pursued during the Nixon and Ford administrations; instead they took an aggressive stance against Communism and advocated the destabilization of the Soviet Union and its allies. In this they resembled the Likudniks, who generally advocated the dissolution of neighboring Arab states in order to protect Israel.

By the 1970s, Commentary had launched a full-fledged defence of neoconservative foreign policy. This was summarized in a 1975 piece by Patrick Moynihan entitled “The United States in Opposition,” in which he argued that American democracy could not survive unless democratic ideals were spread across the globe. (His speech in response to the UN’s resolution equating Zionism with racism, largely written by Podhoretz, was also a turning point in the history of neoconservatism.) Commentary began to feature articles arguing for more defence spending, for the expansion of NATO, against making arms negotiations with the Soviet Union, etc.

Podhoretz and his ilk encouraged the Reagan administration to view conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, etc. as an extension of the Cold War. Under the Reagan doctrine, the government lent military support to anti-Communist movements in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Commentary‘s influence reached a high point during this time. Reagan appointed Commentary writers to senior positions within the White House and consulted them frequently. In Balint’s words:

By resurrecting anti-Communism, a once marginal group of renegade leftists, who had felt themselves handicapped for American life, now found that their ideas had become extraordinarily relevant to their country during the great age of American power; their quarrels had foreshadowed larger political shifts. The squabbles of the Commentary clan had become the politics of governments. Its preoccupations had become the country’s, and its scale of ambitions widened accordingly.

The neoconservatives’ anti-Communist, pro-democracy crusade did not cease with the fall of the Soviet Union: it merely became concentrated upon the Middle East exclusively. Although their influence waned during the Bush (I) and Clinton administrations, neoconservatives regained prominence following 9/11, which provided an ideal pretext to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein in a mission to “drain the Middle East of terrorism by means of exporting democracy” under the pseudo-patriotic pretence of defending American freedom and democracy.

Balint’s account of Commentary‘s evolution is refreshingly candid in its assessment of the neoconservatives’ real motives. In his words, neoconservatives “simply regarded the Republican Party as a useful vehicle” for their own collective interest, which they “cloaked in the rhetoric of national interest.” (This was remarked on by Gore Vidal, who accused Podhoretz of wearing the American flag “like a designer kaftan.”) Balint also quotes Irving Kristol’s remark that the “historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican Party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”

Neoconservatives of course represent a mere fraction of the Jewish population. However this is not because most Jews are “self-loathing,” as Podhoretz would have it; both neoconservatives and their liberal counterparts generally pursue a strategy based on their conception of what best suits their group interests, whether consciously or otherwise.

Running Commentary also offers insight into the mechanics of obtaining political power. There are three main factors referenced throughout that account for the neoconservatives’ ascent: they were intensely committed to intellectual warfare; they formed a close-knit network spread throughout the media, think tanks, universities, and government; and they made alliances with those across the aisle who shared similar objectives.

The gradual displacement of traditional conservatism contributed to achieving Jewish hegemony across the political spectrum. The core tenets of modern liberalism–equal rights, democracy, individualism, free trade–have become enshrined as dogma in mainstream American politics in part due to the collapse of paleoconservatism and the rise of the neoconservative Right, in which Commentary played a central role. The paleoconservative tradition represented by figures like Patrick Buchanan and Russell Kirk has all but vanished from American political discourse, while neoconservatives have, at least in practice, achieved a degree of bipartisan support. Amid the recent anti-government protests in Iran, which were clearly spurred on in part by Western powers and the Israel lobby in an attempt to destabilize the region, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump alike spoke out in support of the protesters. Israel’s intelligence minister also expressed support for the anti-government protests, stating that “if the people succeed in achieving freedom and democracy, many of the threats on Israel and the entire region today will disappear.” Indeed Commentary (now under the editorship of John Podhoretz) has published a handful of articles over the past week beating the drum for regime change in Iran. One article last month made the case that America must prepare a military option on Iran, or at least aid Israel in doing so by pushing Iran out of Syria, curbing Iran’s ballistic missile program (Israel meanwhile possesses up to 400 nuclear warheads), and outlawing Hezbollah, arguing that “America must begin working now to make Israeli military action feasible at a reasonable cost.” Balint’s Running Commentary lays bare the Jewish impetus behind such calls for military action on Israel’s behalf.

(Republished from Counter-Currents Publishing by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement, Neoconservatism 
Hide 27 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Sean says:

    If they want Iran smashed, and they can bring something to the table, they need to make a deal.

    They built a wall, so if Pod and company support Trump’s one, destroy Iran.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  2. ‘… Stalin was not an anti-Semite on principle but nonetheless was despised by Jews on account of his purging of thousands of Jewish Bolsheviks and his opposition to Trotskyite internationalism, having implemented a form of nationalistic communism by adopting the idea of “Socialism in One Country” as state policy…’

    You’re not only wrong, but this is the anniversary date of you being wrong

    http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/vrach-ubijca-e.html

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  3. j says: • Website

    Thinking about how fast the people centered on Commentary were lifted to the Government, it hit me that they had only one competition. What other group offered a coherent vision to the mindless politicians voted into power? Nixon and the others rode to power on anticommunism, but had no comprehensive programs. Commentary offered the only available readymade, sensible guide.
    The other coherent ideological packet on the shelf was the Communist – Socialist intellectuals, and they too had their day under Clinton and Obama.
    The new ideology under formation is alt-right but it aborted itself.

    • Replies: @Issac
    , @Twodees Partain
  4. Issac says:
    @j

    Diaspora claptrap. The gentiles did not need ostjuden garbage philosophy to govern themselves.

    • Agree: Alden
  5. j says: • Website

    But they buy it and rather fast.

  6. mcohen says:

    The mullah are exposed.naked to the eye.rise up Persians and rid yourself of those who pretend to rule in God’s name..

  7. It is the same everywhere.
    Our Dutch tv VARA five to ten years ago broadcast ‘Zwijgen over Israel’, ‘Keep your mouth shut about Israel’.
    Just retired Dutch politicians made critical statements.
    One of them ‘generations of Palestinian youths grow up without any perspective for the future’.

    A journalist of the newspaper Gelderlander, was interviewed, who had written something critical about Israel, saw a large number of letters to the paper complaining about his article.
    He discovered that the flood of letters was organised, by a jewish reading group, that read any newspaper.
    De Gelderlander was one of the last independent newspapers, it no longer is, bought up.

    Peter Edel wrote the book ‘In de schaduw of the star’.
    Meant was the star of David, translation ‘In the shadow of the ster’, a history of how Israel was created.
    He was immediately attacked on tv and in newspapers.
    He now lives in Istanbul, his book has been translated into turkish, was a success.

    The British newspaper Guardian was one of the few independent newspapers, it got into financial trouble, Soros bought it.
    People as Murdoch and Chaim Saban control, it is asserted, 80% of the western media.
    Now the alternative internet is being censured.

    The USA has a jewish organisation, The Anti Defamation League, with a 20 million dollar year budget, and, if I remenber correctly, some twenty offices spread over the USA, just to find any statement or article that jews do not like.

    • Replies: @Wally
  8. @anony-mouse

    Stalin was anti anything or anyone that he thought threatened his power.
    According to his grandson his only goal was world domination.
    Chrustjow, it is asserted, was on on top of his death list, at the time, it, again, it is asserted, he also planned to provoke war by the west by expelling, or putting into concentration camps, all Russian jews.
    The next assertion then is that Chrustjow cooperated with jews to kill him.
    Who reads a detailed description of the circumstances of his death, in how far these details are true, do not know, understands that Stalin was murdered with the help of his life guards.

  9. Totally brilliant!!!! Truth is slowly coming out. Main point. Zionists supported communist Soviet Union until the point, when Soviet Union decided to pull out from Afghanistan.
    That was a changing point.

  10. Wally says:
    @jilles dykstra

    It’s ALL enabled by the fake & scientifically impossible ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’. Jew self interest was the reason for manufacturing ‘holocau$t’ propaganda in the first place.
    Jews has have been peddling their fake & ‘6M’ since at least 1869.

    Absolutely nothing will change until the fraud of the “extermination of Jews” is recognized for the scam that it is.
    If the alleged ‘holocaust’ was fact, then why are there laws in Europe to prevent scrutiny of it? What kind of “truth” needs to imprison people to prevent free speech?

    It’s Time to Drop the Jew Taboo
    http://www.unz.com/article/its-time-to-drop-the-jew-taboo/

    http://www.codoh.com
    “Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.”

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  11. This is a somewhat superficial examination of a book that apparently seeks to whitewash the hypocritical and sometimes destructive role played by Jewish intellectuals in America over that past 70 years.

    Edgar Allen Poe wrote that it is impossible to write a truthful autobiography. This quasi-autobiographical book about Commentary magazine (by a sympathetic Jewish author) underscores this fact. Jews tend to idolize their tribe and its most celebrated members.

    Thus, ‘Running Commentary’ comes across as a narcissistic collection of Jewish anecdotes involving Jewish intellectuals doing battle against the dark forces of… um.. non-Jews.

    Why are gentiles expected to root for Jews (and against themselves?)

    A. Graham’s review of ‘Running Commentary’ indulges this Jewish vanity. Why did unz.com even publish his review? It lacks critical balance.

    It’s certainly comes as no surprise that Truman Capote (and many others) have complained about the nepostic Jewish ‘mafia’. It was real back then. And it’s real now.

    Hardcore Jewish nepotism is a distinct type of bias. It’s divisive. And it’s harmful. But a streak of this bias not only seems to permeate the book but even Graham’s review of the book. This ‘book review’ reads like a Neoconservative press release.

    Why doesn’t Graham dig deeper in his overview of a literary history that pretends to explain the ideological “transformation” of the Left Jewish radicals (communists) to Right Jewish radicals (neoconservatives)? Ultimately, it ends up sounding like a politically-correct fairy tale.

    Indeed, the case can be made that these ideological ‘extremes’ (communism and neo-conservatism) are nothing more than different masks worn by the same players (and their descendents) during various rollouts of Jewish-orchestrated political crusades.

    Forget not: Israel’s secret service (Mossad) proudly declares that ‘By deception thou shall do war’. And war it is. Commentary magazine has always been a part of this ongoing war effort. The Zions never rest.

    Yet Graham seems not to have an inkling about the deceptive nature and destructive impact of numerous Jewish-lead political and intellectual movements that invariably receive sympathetic press by mouthpieces such as Commentary.

    Graham even lets pass Balint’s claim that Commentary’s paltry readership of 20,000 gives explanation to the awesome power of organized Jewry during this era when Jews were not yet in full command of Washington.

    Does the book ever examine the interconnected forces of Jewish finance, Jewish domination in Hollywood and mass media, and coordinated Jewish lobbying in Washington and beyond? If so, this review doesn’t mention it.

    To fully understand his subject, Graham should take an intellectual ride through the world of Kevin MacDonald and read his seminal book, ‘The Culture of Critique’. Instead, Graham serves up the usual mush that one might find in the NY Times.

    Is Graham a stooge or an active co-conspirator?

    It’s a question worth considering.

    Surely, ‘Running Commentary’s author, Benjamin Balint, comes across as a cheerleader for Commentary and its all-Jewish squad of activists, apologists and agitators. No surprise there.

    Unfortunately, reviewer Graham never entertains the possibility that the intellectual vacillations by the geniuses at Commentary might represent 1) strategic Jewish efforts to boost Jewish cohesion and enhance Jewish influence, and 2) Jewish efforts ignite political dissent inside traditionally white, Christian countries to 3) secretly advance ‘Jewish interests’ using revolutionary ideologies as cover.

    Sure, this theories of this kind might be off-kilt or only partially true. But they should not be systematically ignored. Real evidence demands real examination. Dump the taboos. Follow the truth wherever it leads.

    Indeed, it cannot be denied that no small amount of political poison has been marketed by the very Jewish “Family” of alienated intellectuals who have nested at Commentary through the years.

    These dissidents helped sell the world Marxism (Trotskyism), war-making neoconservatism (Kristol, Podhoretz, etc), psychoanalysis (Freud), the Frankfurt School (Horkeimer, Marcuse), The New York (Jewish) intellectuals (too many to mention) as well as the post-Holocaust anti-racist (anti-white) ideologies that are presently transforming Western Europe and N. America into multi-racial dystopias.

    This is serious business. Many have died. Whole nations have been destroyed. But Commentary is still patting itself on the back. Jewish genius!

    Meanwhile, Zionist Israel is expanding its borders, modernizing its nuclear arsenal, and cleansing itself of non-Jews.

    As Israel’s walls go up, ours remain down.

    Who is in charge here?

    On these prickly questions, Commentary is silent or deceptive, since the Commentary crowd routinely advocates for policies which amount to double standards which benefit Israel and/or America’s Jewish community.

    Graham notes that author Benjamin Bilant claims that ‘anti-Semitism’ causes Jewish ethnocentrism. But what if it was the reverse that was actually true?

    Graham also repeats Bilant’s Zionist trope about Israel’s preemptive war in 1967 being ’caused’ by Nasser’s buildup of troops inside Egypt. This is propaganda, not objective scholarship. Israeli leaders knew that it was the perfect time to launch a preemptive attack on the Arabs, since the Arabs were still weak and unprepared. Many modern Israeli scholars agree with this view. In any event, Israel struck first. This cannot be denied. Yet the dubious assertion about Israeli ‘innocence’ gets a pass in ‘Running Commentary’.

    Graham fails also to connect (while Balint’s book ignores) the pivotal role played by Jewish activists, intellectuals as well as neoconservative policies in shaping America’s unpopular and unhappy trajectory towards multiculturalism.

    The case can be made that Jews and Zionism have quietly conquered the Western world. But you won’t hear a robust discussion about inordinent Jewish power in Commentary magazine. They create taboos and use them accordingly.

    Graham obliquely refers to the pursuit of ‘Jewish interests’ here and there, but does he not express the realistic view that Jewish deception is part of the arsenal used to advance “Jewish interests” in countries where Jews reside and the goyim constitute a majority. And this is a lot of countries.

    For instance, Jews in Hollywood/USA typically glamorize black-white miscegenation in film and on TV. In Israel on the other hand, the cinematic glamorization of Arab/Jewish romance or family formation is nowhere to be found. The obvious plan is to 1) eradicate white identity in the US while 2) solidifying Jewish identity in Israel and beyond.

    Indeed, Jewish miscegenation with Africans would likely undermine Jewish continuity as well as Jewish intellectual exceptionalism. This sentiment explains why ‘black Jews’ inside Israel are ignored and marginalized. Ditto on the Arabs. But in white, Christian America, a very different message is sent. Who benefits?

    This book underscores that fact that many Jews cannot honestly examine Jewish political movements and institutions since so many Jews have ideological biases and personal commitments that are tribal in nature. Their unstated job is to protect the interests of ‘The Family’ by keeping the goyish mob distracted and disunited while they remain united and purposeful. Just don’t tell.

    It’s too bad that A. Graham didn’t care to offer up a counter narrative to the processed hasbara that Commentary’s been downloading for decades. Is Graham a stooge or a mole?

    This is a legitimate question. Just consider some of the assertions he helps pass along:

    “Jewish alienation gave way to [Jewish] assimilation into the mainstream”.

    Jewish ‘assimilation’? To what? And in what sense?

    Have Jews have discarded their Jewish identities and become non-hyphenated Americans?

    No.

    In fact, only white Americans have discarded (or are expected to discard) their racial identities and ethnic prerogatives. And we know who’s behind this double-standard.

    Moreover, Jews have not ‘assimilated’ to the mainstream as claimed by Bilant and Graham; rather, they have captured and converted the mainstream, imbuing it Jewish sensibilities.

    These grand deceptions have produced decades of pro-Zionist wars, massive illegal immigration, and vast human suffering. It is a colossal criminal enterprise.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Ivan
  12. The Zionist Bolsheviks in the U.S. are destroying America just like they did Russia with the Bolshevik revolution which was bankrolled by Zionist bankers in America, and if anyone doubts this , read WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION by Anthony Sutton, can be had on amazon.com.

    The Bolsheviks killed over 60 million Russians over the term of Stalins rule in Russia and the slaughter house was ran by Bolsheviks , and if anyone doubts this , read the HARVEST OF SORROW by Robert Conquest, can be had on amazon.

    Read the 10 planks of the communist manifesto and see how far the Bolsheviks have taken America down the path to communism, and once they get our guns they will run the slaughter houses again.

  13. Wally says:
    @mark green

    Mark said:

    “Indeed, the case can be made that these ideological ‘extremes’ (communism and neo-conservatism) are nothing more than different masks worn by the same players (and their descendents) during various rollouts of Jewish-orchestrated political crusades. ”

    Bingo!

    http://www.codoh.com

  14. @Sean

    If by “they” you mean the neocons, all they can bring to the table is a threat to stop funding GOP candidates’ election campaigns. If you mean Israel, that shitty little country can’t bring anything to the table. Israel is used to winning without even sitting down with US politicians.

    The neocons want to manipulate the US into a disastrous war with Iran without even having to negotiate. It’s contrary to American interests to even continue to tout Israel as “our only ally in the Middle East”. Israel is allied only with Israel.

    No matter what either of the “theys” bring to any table, there should be no more wars in the interest of Israel. Enough is enough.

    • Replies: @jack ryan
  15. @j

    I doubt that any competition for “a coherent vision” took place. It’s far more likely that Zion simply handed out money in return for influence. Nixon was handed the presidency because it was the GOP’s turn. That’s how presidential elections are decided; the dims get a turn, then the pubes. Nothing changes no matter who sits in the office.

  16. jack ryan says: • Website

    I am in my mid 50s.

    I really liked Commentary Magazine in the mid 1980s and I really liked Normon Podhoretz and I thought the problem with American Jews was that they were too often bad Liberals, Leftists or even Communists and as American Jews were becoming more Conservative, under this New Conservatism, Neo Conservatism and becoming more race realistic regarding the Black welfare criminal underclass anti Israeli Blacks, Black Muslims and as Israel was siding with White South Africa against a total onslaught, I thought things were getting better.

    After the terrible anti Jewish pogrom in Crown Heights Brooklyn, where non other than Rev. Al Sharpton inciting Black mobs to….

    Kill the Jews

    I noted with great hope that New York City Jews help elect mayor Rudy Guliani and civilization was restored.

    I had such great hopes and then……..

    It all came apart over mass immigration and Neo Conservative invasions, wars against Serbian Christian Nationalists, against secular Arabs in Iraq and Syria.

    I learned to my horror that the younger Jewish Neo Conservatives like Jonathan Podhoretz, Jonah Goldberg, William Kristol, David Frum, Tamar Jacoby demanded near open borders immigration to the USA , Europe, England and Australia!

    That’s includes inviting the entire Muslim populations of Pakistan and Afghanistan!

    William Kristol goes as far as openly calling on poor and White working class Americans to be replaced with supposedly happy low wage slave 3rd world immigrants.

    This horror of the Jewish Neo Conservatives might as well have come out of the NS Movie “The Eternal Jew”.

  17. TheOldOne says:

    Mark Green:

    Well said, sir.

  18. jack ryan says: • Website
    @Twodees Partain

    Israel does have a very temporary alliance with the Saudi Sunni Islamist royals.

    On all issues that count – Saudi Arabia and Israel and the American Jewish media/academic/financial elite are on the same side.

    Israel and Saudi Arabia took around ~ zero Syrian war refugees.

    Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Jewish Diaspora demand Europe, UK, Australia, USA most essentially accept unlimited numbers of Muslim/Black African migrants – anybody that objects is smeared and marginalized as an evil Nazi the same as those NAZIs who supposedly gassed exactly 6 million Jews.

    This terrible alliance between Saudi Sunni Islamist royals and Israel/International Jews is best symbolized by the sham marriage between New York Mayor to be/not to be pervert

    Anthony Wiener and Hillarys Lesbian chief of staff Saudi huma abed in

    There was never a stronger case for birth control than that ugly, hateful couple:

    • Replies: @mcohen
  19. mcohen says:
    @jack ryan

    [Commenters who make absolutely no effort at proper capitalization, punctuation, or spacing should not be surprised if many of their comments are not published.]

    Every time i see these 2 together i unbuckle a chuckle.there stands the final straw my friends.

    Not only did it break the camels back he humped it too.yeah yeah hahoooooooo

  20. It has been obvious to me for many decades that neoconservatism was birthed PRECISELY when the international left abandoned their fealty to Israel and took up the Palestinian cause.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Anon
  21. iffen says:
    @Rick Johnson

    Can you be a little more precise with the precisely? Names, organizations, dates, etc. I know you have something in mind that you think is very important, but I don’t know what it is.

  22. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Running Commentary: The Contentious Magazine that Transformed the Jewish Left into the Neoconservative Right”

    Neoconservatism means Rightism for Jewish Identity and Leftism for White Identity.

    It’s a hybrid that pushes leftism on whites to buttress rightism for Jews.

  23. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    The core tenets of modern liberalism–equal rights, democracy, individualism, free trade–have become enshrined as dogma in mainstream American politics in part due to the collapse of paleoconservatism and the rise of the neoconservative Right, in which Commentary played a central role.

    I wish. Where do you see equal rights? Why does US favor Zionist Israel over Palestinians? Why is BDS being criminalized? Why is Alt Right freedom of speech being shut down? Real equal rights wouldn’t be so bad as what we got now, which is favoritism for Jews, blacks, and homos at the expense of all others.
    And where do we see real democracy? We have oligarchy and plutocracy. Trump won as the People’s Candidate, but what has he done so far? Tax cuts for the rich and more support for Israel.
    And where do you see individualism? We have PC collectivism of the hive mind. We have the mass cult of worshiping homos. Would journalists be such pressititutes of the Deep State if they were genuinely individualistic and independent?
    And where do we see real Free Trade? US uses sanctions against Russia and Iran, two major nations. It showers Israel with lots of prizes even though Israel violates international laws and has illegal nukes. Iraq in the 90s sure wasn’t part of any ‘free trade’. 100,000s died of starvation or disease under a sanctions regime. So much for free trade.
    What goes by the name of ‘free trade’ is ‘Favorable trade policies for nations IF they obey Zionist-ruled US’.

    There is no ‘modern liberalism’ in America. And Neo-conservatism was not about adopting those principles. It was about merely using those labels to mask and push what is an ethnocentric, oligarchic, cultist, and imperial global policy.

    I’ll take the tenets of ‘modern liberalism’ if there were to be sincerely practiced in the US. They are not. US is a ‘liberal democracy’ where both parties sing endless praises to Israel while totally ignoring the plight of Palestinians.

  24. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Rick Johnson

    It has been obvious to me for many decades that neoconservatism was birthed PRECISELY when the international left abandoned their fealty to Israel and took up the Palestinian cause.

    Leftists going rightist is nothing new.

    First of all, many people took up leftism as a tool of rightism. Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist first who adopted communism as a means of national liberation. Castro was a right-wing Cuban patriot before he adopted leftism as a weapon against US imperialism.

    And the USSR allowed tolerated nationalism in Warsaw Pact nations as long as it wasn’t anti-communist and anti-Soviet.

    So, it was not surprising that many Jewish leftists would go rightist.

    After all, identity is more stable and meaningful than ideology. Why? Identity is what you are regardless of what you believe. A Jew is a Jew even if he rejects Jewish religion. A Vietnamese is Vietnamese even if he claims he’s a communist or libertarian. Ideas can easily change in the mind. Identity is more resilient.

  25. Ivan says:
    @mark green

    Very well said. Jewish intellectuals have a habit of exonerating whatever it is that needs exonerating by the device of claiming good intentions, confusedly applied as it is sometimes, but ultimately as a result of their deep love for their fellow men and their devotion to the truth. But let say a Russian or a German intellectual do the same service for say Putin or conservative Germany, and these same intellectuals would be the first to call them antisemites, warmongers etc. A deeply deceptive mode of argumentation. For this reason, I who used to believe these fellows at the 110% level now have nothing but contempt for them as they are largely not playing with a full deck.

  26. Z-man says:

    The Arabs could easily pick up the shortfall of Trump cutting off ZOG bucks to the Palestinians, but then again they’re Arabs, so they won’t even help their brothers. A pox on all of those non Christian heathens, but a special place for one tribe. (Grin)

  27. @Wally

    France and Germany also have laws that protect the Armenian genocide, that never was, in my opinion.
    Why ?
    Do not know, politicians do not have the time to read a few books, and/or are not interested in facts.
    We see ignoring facts right now, any house in the Netherlands should not have a gas connection within five or ten years.
    The simple fact that even now, with CO2 electricity, there is not enough electricity for the conversion, and that, if there was enough electricity, enormous investments would be necessary in our electricity transport system, they are too stupid to think about, or to understand, or they just say what is politically necessary.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All A. Graham Comments via RSS
PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?